Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY
is childish in kind, or was he the man to waste himself,
like Plato, upon music, geometry, mathematics and
astronomy, which not only start from false assumptions
and so cannot be true, but if they were true would not
aid us one whit towards living a more agreeable,
that is a better life; was he, I ask, the man to pursue
those arts and thrust behind him the art of living,
an art of such moment, so laborious too, and correspond-
ingly rich in fruit ?
How could the man who translated so well in 1883
write such an unsatisfactory commentary and punctu-
ate so badly in his edition of the Pro Archia in 1891?
A study of the passages quoted in this paper will
show how thoroughly the Romans — Cicero at least —
were masters of this highly effective bit of rhetoric.
As evidences of that mastery we may recapitulate
here the use of non or nonne in the second member,
in varying ways, the setting of at least three sentences
of this type side by side in Pro Balbo 54 (with the
separation of two of them by anne), the use of non. . .
sed in both members, in Tusc. 5. 104, the varying tenses
in different examples, and, finally, the use of even the
conditional subjunctive in De Finitus 1.72 (with the
resumption there of the whole first member through
The passage cited above from the De Finibus,
ending as it does with a resumptive ergo-clause, which
gathers up and repeats the contents of the on-clause,
makes one think of such a passage as Cicero Tusc. 1.31 :
Ergo arbores seret diligens agricola, quarum adspiciet
bacam ipse numquam, vir magnus leges, instituta,
rem publicam non seret?
Is, then, the thrifty husbandman to plant trees
whose fruit he will never himself see, (and) the great
man not to plant laws, institutions, the common-
Here for ergo we might substitute an. It is worth
while to note that Meissner, who has a fine note on this
idiom, puts a colon after numquam. C. K.
LEGISLATION AGAINST POLITICAL CLUBS
DURING THE REPUBLIC 1
The special object of the Lex Licinia De Sodaliciis
was to put an end to the existence of political clubs.
Unions of citizens for various purposes had been com-
mon almost from the foundation of the city. Trades-
Mommsen, De Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum. Kiel, 1843.
Colin, Zum Romischen Vereitiswesen. Berlin, 1873.
Liebenam, Zur Geschichte und Organisation des Romischen
Vereinswesen._ Leipzig, 1890.
Waltzing, Etude historique sur les corporations professionelles
chez les Romains. Louvain, i8g.s.
Weismann, De Divisoribus et Sequestribus, Ambitus apud
Romanos Instrumentis. Heidelberg, 1831.
Pernice, M. Antistius Labeo. Halle, 1873.
Labatut, La corruption electorale chez les Romains. Paris, 1876.
De Marchi, II culto privato di Roma antica. Milano. 1903.
Bloch, Le Praefectus Fabrum. Louvain, 1905.
Rein, Criminalrecht, 714-719.
Zumpt, Criminalrecht, 11. 2.367-404.
Zumpt, Criminalprocess, 545-547-
Lange, Alterthumer, 1,716 . ff.; 3.340.
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3.1181, etc.
Mommsen, Strafrecht, 872 ff.
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 3.134 ff.; 204.
Greenidge. Legal Procedure, 448 ff.
Strachan-Davidson, Criminal Law, 2.95-m.
unions, composed of the workmen in the different
trades, were recognized in the time of the monarchy,
and no effort was ever made to dissolve them, until
they began to exert a political influence. Such unions
were called collegia, and we hear of seven of them before
the establishment of the Republic, which were under
the protection of the State, if indeed the State did not
take the initiative, as Plutarch intimates, in creating
them. They included in their membership the workers
in all the principal occupations in the city 2 . Persons
holding the same office, as the pontiffs, the augurs,
and the tribunes, formed collegia, and these also
existed without criticism 5 . But in the last century
of the Republic many of the collegia began to use their
influence in a political way, and in the year 64 B. C.
those that were thought to be inimical to the public
welfare were all abolished. They were restored,
however, by a measure proposed by Clodius, during his
tribuneship in the year 58 B. C. 4 , with disastrous results
to the regular working of the government.
Unions of a second kind, composed of the worshippers
of some divinity, were called sodalitates. We hear,
for example, that a sodalitas of Mercuriales was
created in 387 B. C, and that in 204, at the inaugura-
tion of the worship of the Mater Magna, a special
sodalitas of those who superintended her worship
was formed 5 . Gaius asserts that sodalitates existed
at the time of the XII Tables 6 , and some Roman
scholars carried their foundation back as far as the
age of Romulus 7 . With the introduction of new
divinities their number constantly increased, and they
were found in every part of the Empire. Ostensibly
their chief function was to make offerings to a divinity
at a particular temple, but perhaps the activity which
created the most far-reaching consequences consisted
in their holding banquets which fostered a close friend-
ship among the. members. Since their duties centered
in a special shrine rather than in the worship of a
divinity generally, they were sometimes called collegia
templorum, but never collegia deorum 8 . All of these
created a much stronger bond among their members
than the ordinary collegia did. In many respects
they are comparable to the lodges of the present day.
They had a kind of insurance, extending to the educa-
tion of the children of deceased sodales. In a public
way they were of service to their members, for a sodalis
would not take legal action against a member of his
sodalitas, but would aid him in his legal difficulties.
This close relationship was guarded against in certain
prohibitory clauses in the legislation of C. Gracchus.
In one of the laws passed during his tribunate it was
2 Plutarch, Numa 17.
3 Livy 1.20, 2.27; Pliny, N. H. 18.2. *Cicero, Sest. 34.
5 C. I. L.i 1 , page 206; Cicero ,Cato Maior 45 (Cato is sneaking) :
Sodalitates autem me quaestore constitutae sunt, sacris Idaeis
Magnae Matris acceptis. Epulabar igitur cum sodalibus; Gellius
2. 24.2: Principes civitatis, qui ludis Megalensibus antiquo ritu
mutitarent, id est mutua inter se convivia agitarent; C. I. L. 6.494:
Matri deum et navi Salviae Q. Nunnius Telephus mag[ister] col-
[legii] culto[rum] eius.
6 Digest 47.22.4. 7 Tuditanus ap. Macrobium 1. 16.32.
8 Digest 22.214.171.124.
THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY
ordered that in cases of extortion no man could act as
counsel or juryman provided the defendant in the case
were a member of his sodalitas or collegium 9 . In
the last century of the Republic they used their in-
fluence as organizations in giving assistance to members
in their candidacy for office 10 . This became so pro-
nounced that many of them were abolished in 64,
and others in 56 B. C.
But the Romans drew no sharp distinction between
collegia and sodalitates. Thus Gaius says that sodales
are those who belong to the same collegium 11 , and even
unions of those engaged in a particular occupation
were sometimes called sodalitates 12 . Probably the
nearest distinction to which the Romans adhered,
and they were not consistent even in this, was that the
sodalitates had for their object the cultivation of the
worship of a particular divinity, while the word col-
legium was a broader word, indicating no one object
as against all others, but a union lasting for the period
of the life of its members 13 . A sodalitas might be of
short duration, but in general it was self -perpetuating,
and lasted as long as the worship of a divinity lasted.
A third form of union, and this is the one which
became especially pernicious, was the temporary
club formed for the express purpose of accomplishing
some political end, or ends. Livy mentions one of
these that was created in the year 314 B. C. to exert
an influence on the elections of that year". They were
usually only temporary organizations, having one
definite object, and they probably disbanded as soon
as that object was attained. They were a special
kind of collegium, whose activity was almost, if not
quite, confined to politics. Toward the end of the
Republican period they became extremely numerous,
formed as they were to meet some assumed emergency,
such as a particularly close election, or some threatened,
legislation. Quintus Cicero says that his brother
belonged to several 15 , and Marcus Cicero himself
speaks of groups, which he calls factiones, each created
for one object alone 16 . Dio Cassius calls the first
triumvirate, composed of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus,
a union of this kind 17 . The more influential and some-
what permanent of such political unions or clubs were
put out of existence by the severity of Sulla's constitu-
tion. But that condition did not last long, for very
shortly thereafter we hear of corruption, caused by
these organizations, more open and thorough-going
than before. The collegia of the more eminent men,
such as the priestly organizations, and the sodalitates,
9 The Lex Acilia, v. 10, declared that one could not be a patronus
or judex quei eiei (i. e. reo) sobrinus siet propiusve eum cognatione
attigat queive eiei sodalis siet queive in eodem collegio siet.
10 Cicero, Verr. 2.1.94; Mur. 56; De Orat. 2.200.
"Digest 47.22.4: Sodales sunt, qui eiusdera collegii sunt, quam
Graeci eraipetav vocant.
W C. I. L. 6.9136 sodales aerarii; 9.5450 sodaHcium fullonum.
Compare Orelli, 4098, 4103.
13 Marquardt, 3.137; Mommsen, Coll. 5; Cicero, Brut. 166;
Pro Sull. 7; Lex Acil. C. I. L. 1.198, vv. 9-10.
"9.26. "De Pet. Cons. 5.19. "Ad Quintum Fratrem 3.1. 15.
17 37-57: <rvfL<ppovri<T&vT(av 8^ ixflvujv koX rh tratpacA a<pwv
(compare 38.13) ufio\6yrjiTav Kal &Troiovv koX ohrot juerd
dSetas 8<ra ij0€\ov t 7jy€p.6(riv aiirois xp&fxevoi.
gave systematic assistance to their members in winning
elections. But even more corrupting than that was
the readiness of the unions of artisans to sell their
votes as organizations, and to cause violence in the
conduct of elections. At the same time numerous
organizations were created solely for the purpose of
influencing public affairs, whether in elections or in
legislation. These frequently took the name of
collegia in order to conceal their real intentions 18 .
These, Asconius says, received no public authorization,
and were contrary tq the welfare of the state 19 . It is
doubtful whether there was any power in the Republic
that could have checked their activity, or controlled
their formation, for it is exceedingly probable that the
majority of candidates for office endeavored regularly
to increase their political influence, or win elections,
by forming organizations, or illegally approaching
those already formed. So long as officials were ready
to form clubs, and the voters were ready to sell their
votes to them, legislation against the clubs must of
necessity be useless.
The recognized and long established collegia and
sodalitates were placed in the category of juristic
persons, at least to the extent that they could hold
property and make contracts, provided they kept
within the law as it applied to private citizens 20 .
But the political clubs neither possessed, nor desired
to possess, such privileges, for their wish was to conceal
their influence, and even their existence. They com-
monly avoided the name of collegia, but were some-
times called sodalitates, or factiones, or still more
frequently sodalicia 21 . It is a difficult question whether
the names thus used applied to the common people,
implying that they joined organizations, or was
restricted to those men in higher positions who banded
together to create organizations. The words are
often used to denote only the men in higher positions,
and apparently only the officers could be prosecuted
for illegal acts, after there was legislation on the
subject; so it seems that they alone were felt by the
Romans to compose the temporary organizations,
and there is no indication that the people who allowed
themselves to be used in this way were regarded as
guilty in any respect.
Another question which has been much debated
is whether the various unions, collegia and sodalitates,
required authorization or permission by the State in
order that their existence might be legal. If the State
1B Suetonius, Aug. 32: plurimae factiones titulo collegii novi ad
nullius non facinoris societatem coibant. Compare Cicero, In
Cornel. 66; Asconius in Orat. in Cornel. 67; Waltzing. 1.48.
19 Asconius in Cornel, p. 75 (speaking of conditions in the year 65) :
frequentes turn etiam coetus factiosorum hominum sine publica
auctoritate malo publico fiebant.
20 Gaius, Digest 47.22.4: Sodalibus potestatem facit lex (XII
tabulae) pactionem quam velint sibi ferre, dum ne quid ex publica
lege corrumpant; Digest 38.2.14: ius publicum pactis privatorum
mutari non posse.
HDe Pet. Cons. 19;. Cicero, Ad Q. Fr. 2.3.5; Plane. 36, 47;
Frag, in Vat. : audacissimus de factione (factio = first triumvirate) ;
Marcian, Digest 47.22.1 pr.: collegia sodalicia. From this expres-
sion of Marcian it is clear that the word sodalicia was an adjective,
and signifies something that encouraged the close relationship of
the sodalitates. But the combination used by Marcian does not
occur in classical Latin.
THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY
demanded such authorization, then all organizations
that did not seek and obtain it would be illegal from
the outset. Or, if that was the case, it might be truer
to say that the unrecognized organizations could not
expect support from the State in the event of their
wishing to enforce contracts, or legally take possession
of property. It is thought, on the authority of Plutarch,
that Numa was responsible for the creation of the first
organizations of artisans. They seem to have been
under the protection of the State during the whole
period of the kings. It is said that Tarquinius Super-
bus forbade religious associations both in the city and
in the country districts, on account of their attempted
interference in politics, but there is nothing to show
that he in any way endeavored to restrict either the
formation or the continued existence of the collegia
of artisans. Nor is there proof of the enactment
of any law during the Republican period restricting
the existence or activity of associations, until the last
years before the civil wars. Two laws were cited
by Porcius Latro as bearing on the subject, but they
cannot be considered relevant to it. He cites the XII
Tables, to the effect that meetings by night were for-
bidden, and the Gabinian Law, that no secret gather-
ings should be held in the city 22 . Nor does the. law
cited by Gaius from the XII Tables indicate that there
was any necessity for authorization. The view that
there was no such necessity has found almost universal
acceptance 23 , but it should be pointed out that there
is some slight indication of necessity in the speech of
Postumius, consul in 186 B. C, on the occasion of
the suppression of the Bacchanals 24 . But that evidence
is not sufficient to warrant such an assumption, for
Postumius was not speaking of the meetings of such
organizations as these. It seems clear, therefore,
that any club could be formed -without seeking State
recognition, nor was its existence illegal, until made so
by positive enactment on the subject.
The first restrictive enactment was a senatus consul-
turn passed in 64 B. C. This bill is mentioned expli-
citly twice by Asconius. In one passage he speaks of
the rise of factiones about the time when Cicero de-
livered his speech for Cornelius, in the year 65, saying
that afterward the unions were abolished, except a few
collegia, such as those of artisans, which were felt to
be useful to the State 25 . In the other passage he adds
that the Ludi Compitalicii were abolished at the same
time. This took place in the consulship of L. Iulius
Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus. But the collegia were
^Decl. in Cat. 19: primum XII tab. cautum esse cojposcimus,
ne qui in urbe coetus noctumos agitaret, deinde lege Gabinia promul-
gatum, qui coitiones ullas clandestinas in urbe conflaverit, more
maiorum capitali supplicio multetur.
BE. g. by Mommsen. Coll. 36; Liebenam, 17; Waltzing, 1.79;
^Livy 39-15: Maiores vestri ne vos quidem, nisi cum aut
vexillo in arce posito comitiorum causa exercitus eductus esset . . .
forte temere coire voluerunt; et ubicunque multitudo esset, ibi et
legitimum rectorem multitudinis censebant debere esse. Cohn,
35, accepts this as sufficient evidence.
M Asconius in Cornel, p. 75: postea collegia senatus consulto et
pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque quae utilitas
civitatis desiderasset quasi ut fabrorum fictorumque (Stangl reads
restored by a law of Clodius at the end of 59 B. C. M .
Here a difficulty arises, for Asconius says that the
collegia were restored by Clodius nine years after their
abolition by the Senate. If this is true, the enact-
ment of the Senate must be dated in 68 B. C, and the
names of the consuls must be changed to L. Caecilius
Metellus and Q. Marcius Rex in the note of Asconius 27 ,
as well as in the text of Cicero 2 ". But that would
conflict with the statement of Asconius that the col-
legia were springing into great prominence in the year
65, which would be only three years after the enact-
ment for their suppression, so that it would be much
better to change novem to quinque in the text of Asconius
than to make the greater change in the names of the
consuls, and at the same time to convict Asconius of a
serious contradiction in his two statements.
It is not easy to decide upon the extent to which the
Senate wished its measure to apply to the various
organizations. Asconius says that the Ludi Compitali-
cii were abolished. This was clearly no part of an
enactment directed against collegia explicitly and by
name, but it implies that these games had been used
by ambitious politicians as an occasion for canvassing
for votes, or seeking to extend their influence. They
may also have given an opportunity for violence in the
streets. For these reasons the Senate would feel it
necessary to abolish them 29 . But the language of
Asconius indicates rather definitely that all collegia,
with a very few exceptions, were abolished. In order
to understand this it is necessary to endeavor to find
an acceptable definition for the word collegium, and
that is difficult, for the word does not seem to have
been very clearly defined by the Romans themselves
at this time. Asconius says that many organizations
had arisen 'without public authorization', but evi-
dently he is using an expression applicable to his
own day rather than to the Republican period, for in
the Imperial times it was necessary to secure authoriza-
tion in order to render the existence of the organiza-
tions legal 80 . Upon the basis of this statement,
Dirksen claims that collegia in the statement of Asconius
means collegia illicila, but that cannot possibly be
correct unless we should assume that authorization
was necessary during the Republic. Zumpt is of the
opinion that the word was intended to include only
political clubs, but that is much too narrow, for it
implies that it must be proved that a club, established
ostensibly for other purposes, had participated unduly
^Asconius in Pison. .6-7: L. lulio C. Marcio consulibus, quos
et ipse Cicero supra memoravit, senatus consulto collegia sublata
sunt quae adversus rem publicam videbantur esse .... Solebant
autem magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sicut magistri vicorum
faciebant, Compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis
discussi sunt. Post novem deinde annos quam sublata erant P.
Clodius tribunus plebis lege lata restituit collegia. Compare Dio
Cassius, 38, 13.
* 7 This is done by Cohn, 40, 51-55; Pernice, 301; and Gaudenzi,
Sui collegi degli artigiani in Roma (Archivio Giuridico, 1884, 37-38).
!8 In Pis. 8.
"Waltzing. 1.93; Mommsen, Staatsr., 3.1181, Anm. 1; Willems,
Senat, 2. 115, nn. 1, 4, 116, 326.
30T Jlpian in Digest 47.22.2: Quisquis illicitum collegium usur-
paverit, ea poena tenetur, qua tenentur, qui hominibus armatis loca
publica vel templa occupasse iudicati sunt.
THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY
in political affairs, before its abolition could legally be
effected. But it is impossible to believe that the Senate
undertook such a stupendous task as the investigation
of the conditions existing in each organization. Had
it done so, we should have much information in ancient
writers on a matter of so great importance. A third
explanation, offered by Cohn, is that the word col-
legium means a legal club, formed for religious pur-
poses, and that the collegia abolished at this time
were those that had previously received authoriza-
tion. But this also becomes impossible in view
of the fact that no authorization was required for
any of them. On the whole, it seems best to adopt
the broadest definition of the word, and to hold with
Waltzing that the associations suppressed by the
Senate all bore the name of collegia, that many of them
were old, that all were animated by factional tendencies,
that they had many different forms, but that it was
not intended to include the collegia of the priests
or of the Capitolini, or certain associations of artisans.
This' definition of the word covers sodalitates and the
political clubs, which masqueraded under the more
dignified title of collegia, although the Romans would
not normally expect to give that name to these tem-
porary organizations. This is the conclusion reached
also by Liebenam.
The senatorial decree was probably obeyed for
four or five years; at any rate nothing is said about
the associations, either favorable or unfavorable, until
the year 59. In this year Piso was elected consul for 58,
and granted permission for the celebration of the Ludi
Compitalicii on January 1, 58". He was clearly
under the influence of Clodius and other demagogues
in giving his consent to this violation of the law.
One of the first things done by Clodius after his assump-
tion of the tribuneship on December 10, 58, was to
legalize the existence of clubs, by carrying a measure
recognizing those already formed, and permitting the
formation of many new ones. Indeed he seems to
have participated actively in creating them, and especi-
ally the collegia compitalicia, or neighborhood clubs 32 .
Asconius tells us that immediately there arose much
greater political activity among the lowest classes 33 .
The sodalicia became more numerous than ever
before, and were a serious menace to the orderly
conduct of public business 34 . It is a curious fact that
nothing further is said of the sodalicia during the next
two years. It is scarcely possible that they were
inactive, but they may have been particularly on guard
against the crisis which everybody foresaw must soon
come. The later references to them all relate to their
activity during the year of the tribuneship of Clodius.
Nevertheless they were probably active as usual in
these years, but by accident we do not happen to hear
of them. This alone will explain the fact that the
Senate found it necessary in 56 to pass a resolution
restrictive in its nature. Clodius had permitted the
existence of all collegia; the Senate prohibited those
whose members were enrolled into decuries, that is to
say, the Senate took the point of view that these
unions were a menace in proportion to their degree of
organization. Cicero complains that Clodius enrolled
slaves into sodalitates 35 ; that was probably forbidden
by the decree of the Senate, or at least unions must
have been prohibited which were composed of a mixture
of slaves and freemen.
(To be continued)
Dartmouth College. R. W. Husband.
"Cicero, In Pis. 8. * ! Dio Cassias, 38. 13.
M Asconius in Pison, 8.
"Cicero, Sest. 34, 55; De Domo 13. S4; Pis. 11, 23; Post Red.
in Sen. 33.
Introduction to Latin. By John Copeland Kirtland
and George Benjamin Rogers. New York: The
Macmillan Company (1914). Pp. xvi-f" 261. $.85.
This book, like nearly all contemporaneous begin-
ners' books, is a modification of the old 'gramma-
tical method', first, in that the amount of grammatical
material to be learned is greatly reduced, and, secondly,
in the way in which this material is administered,
namely, in small 'doses' and with graded exercises in
reading and writing Latin as an accompaniment of
each dose. The authors are more radical in their
treatment of syntax, which is taught not by rules,
but only in the form of explanations following the
Latin-English exercises, because the authors believe
that "syntax can be firmly grasped only through
reading". However, Rules of Syntax are given in the
back of the book for those who wish them.
One might expect that the same order would be
followed in presenting the facts of grammar, and for
the same reason. On the contrary paradigms are given
for the most part only in the Conspectus of Inflections
at the back of the book, because the authors believe
that a presentation in detached groups "separates
forms that properly go together, and make less effective
use of the principle of association". Their practice,
therefore, is to refer the pupil to this Conspectus for
any set of forms which are to be learned and used in a
given lesson. Some slight modification of this plan,
however, evidently seemed necessary, for in the first
lesson there is given the present indicative active of
amo with English meaning, which, with eight verbs
of the same conjugation given in the lesson vocabulary,
the pupils are asked to learn to inflect, before they
come to the Latin exercises consisting of isolated
verb forms and a few unconnected sentences. In this
and the next lesson no declensions are given and only
the nominatives (singular and plural) of several first
declension nouns are used. The first declension model
sagitta, with meanings, is given in complete form in
Lesson III. The use of the genitive is first found in
Lesson VI, that of the dative in VII. Again, the
35 Post Red. in Sen. 33 : servos simulatione collegiorum nominatim